Reic Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Get him back please, redzone threat! I was so upset when we released him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCJDLJ Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Can he rush the passer? You kill me,man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Is it possible to sign a guy who's like 7' 10" and only play him down near the goal line? lol...Just have Campbell toss it up real high, and the guy can just stand there and catch it? Also...wouldn't a guy who weighs 1,000 pounds be a great goalie in hockey? He wouldn't have to move, you could just wheel him out onto the ice and wedge his body into the goal. I also wouldn't mind signing a donkey as a kicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus87 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Here's the problem with this- we already have enough recievers. Whether you like them or not, that's the way it is for this year. We need to give Lloyd another shot at #2 this year before we can dump him, Randle El's a good slot reciever, and Thrash is actually a DAMN good #4 that I think a lot of people are underrating here. It's not like Al Saunders' requires a bunch of recievers anyway in his offense. If we end up getting a veteran for a roster spot, I'd rather it be on the d-line or o-line. Those are the only two areas we're in need and it would make sense, NOT WR though. The only WR I'd say yes to at this point would be Moulds, I still don't get why nobody's picked him up yet. Is he hurt or something? But that's it. Otherwise, Moss/Lloyd/Randle El/Thrash is our recieving corps, with Cooley catching a bunch and the backs catching balls out of the backfield, in a run based offense anyway. McCardell just doesn't fit into this scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCJDLJ Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Sorry , I am usually positive about the skins moves but I see this as Patten version 2. They cannot be compared. Patton was a system receiver who never stood out as an individual talent. McCardell is better at 37 than Patton at any age. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCJDLJ Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Here's the problem with this- we already have enough recievers. Whether you like them or not, that's the way it is for this year. We need to give Lloyd another shot at #2 this year before we can dump him, Randle El's a good slot reciever, and Thrash is actually a DAMN good #4 that I think a lot of people are underrating here. It's not like Al Saunders' requires a bunch of recievers anyway in his offense.If we end up getting a veteran for a roster spot, I'd rather it be on the d-line or o-line. Those are the only two areas we're in need and it would make sense, NOT WR though. The only WR I'd say yes to at this point would be Moulds, I still don't get why nobody's picked him up yet. Is he hurt or something? But that's it. Otherwise, Moss/Lloyd/Randle El/Thrash is our recieving corps, with Cooley catching a bunch and the backs catching balls out of the backfield, in a run based offense anyway. McCardell just doesn't fit into this scenario. I respectfully disagree. He would be a great depth signing and just because we sign a receiver dosen't prevent us from signing free agent depth at other positions. I agree Lloyd should be given another chance @ the #2 rec spot but what happens if one rec pulls up lame? What if 2 do? Espy and Thrash at 1, 2 or 3? That dog don't hunt! :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 It would be a decent move for the Skins. But do they really need a WR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TODD Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 This makes it CLEAR that Brunell will be the starting QB next year. It's going to be the Ramsey situation all over again. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHateMe Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 What's the story with this guy? Why havent any teams shown any interest in him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 This makes it CLEAR that Brunell will be the starting QB next year. It's going to be the Ramsey situation all over again.[/Quote]What makes you think this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Sign him up! It'll be like when then signed Andre Reed in 2000! Of wait, nevermind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EersSkins05 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 This makes it CLEAR that Brunell will be the starting QB next year. It's going to be the Ramsey situation all over again. :doh: You're insane. Ramsey was a shaky starter all through the preseason. ALL the marbles are invested in JC. McCardell is just a nice veteran depth signing, at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TODD Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Haha it was a JOKE! Man I need to start posting in the Stadium more to get my credibility back. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantor Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 37 years old? No thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expensivegift Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I'm not too excited about this one. But if it's for the minimum then I'm all for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area51 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Is Tyler Ecker still on the team? He is humongous. I also don't think people are taking Captain Chaos into account when talking about a possession receiver. Cooley is not athletic enough to be a possession receiver. He is a good red zone target but not someone you can just lob the ball to and expect him to come down with it. Hopefully the newer, more muscular Lloyd can fill that void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamptonskinsfan Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 i say sure sign him up for vet min. that way IF he is out played by espy or thrash then we just cut him at the end of training camp. it couldn't hurt. let's say he DOES out play lloyd??? we just helped ourselves alot,plus you gain EXPERIENCED depth. sounds like a win/win situtation to me. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lead Blocker Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 A move like this makes late Aug. more interesting. How many WR would carry over to the reg. season? Who's the odd man out if less than 6? If they carry 6 WRs what position on that side of the ball loses some depth? How much does McCardell still have in his tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailVictory Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 My guess is that there is some genuine concern over Santana's hamstring issues as of late; that combined with his history of similar injuries has magnified the need for a reliable veteran receiver in the event that Santana misses a significant portion of the season. Eric Moulds would actually be the better option in terms of productivity and longevity, but the intangibles like McCardell's character and history with Brunell seem to create a better potential fit in Washington. Coaches remarked about the stabalizing force that David Patten brought to the Redskin locker room - I think this is an acknowledgement for the need for more experience and character on the offensive side of the ball... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OriginalWhizzinator Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 i watched most chagrer games out here in san diego. the man is old. they let him go to give more time to eric parker, vinson, and malcom floyd. maybe 2 years ago, but hes done now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceSkinsFan Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Normally I'd rip into the posting of another "should we sign him" thread. This one, on the other hand, may actually work. Sure he's old, but he finds a way to get open and he can still play. Ricky Prohel is pretty old too, yet he still seems to sign somewhere every year and be productive. A little experienced depth here couldn't hurt, keep another young WR to play on special teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morpheusmeyers Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Get him back please, redzone threat!I was so upset when we released him. I just noticed your age. Weren't you 4 when we released him in the early 90's?! LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeen80 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I dont think it would hurt to sign the aging Keenan. But, let's be realistic, what are we really going to get from him if he signs? He's nearing 40 and is not explosive anymore. Granted he'll still make about 30 catches for 400 yards or so, but wouldn't there be a log-jam at WR with Moss, Lloyd, Randle El, and Thrash? Let's not forget Mike Espy either. It doesn't hurt to have him, but don't you think we need to address our biggest need at D-line with the available money we have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant15fromNJ Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I would like the pick up he will give us leadership and he could still make plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachingWinsChampionships Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share Posted June 20, 2007 Normally I'd rip into the posting of another "should we sign him" thread. This one, on the other hand, may actually work. Sure he's old, but he finds a way to get open and he can still play. Ricky Prohel is pretty old too, yet he still seems to sign somewhere every year and be productive. A little experienced depth here couldn't hurt, keep another young WR to play on special teams. As the thread-starter I'd like to point out that this was not like those "should we sign him" threads. Those are "Player X was released today. Do you think we could get him?" Mine was information from an actual news source (if you would call ESPN that) that the Skins were in "active negotiations" with McCardell. Mine is not just speculation. Thanks for not ripping into me anyway though. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.